Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[Kenny]

It's in the dictionary, you can Google it.

Obviously, your definition differs, that is why I asked. Let me help you, Is a one year old independent?

 

[leroy]

Sorry, I'm an individual with my own thoughts and opinions, and while I am pro-choice, I am not a member of any "pro-choice" tribe.

So under your view can a mother

1 kill the embryo/fetus

2 mutilate his leggs


Yes no why?

 

[leroy]

Obviously, by your posts, you haven't read the thread.

Might want to keep it in context.

Get ready for a loooooog and boring discussion where you will never get a clear definition of independent

 

[Sheldon]

Obviously, by your posts, you haven't read the thread.

Might want to keep it in context.

You could always address the many points I have made that are salient to the topic, if you have any interest (for once) in actual debate?

 

[Sheldon]

Obviously, your definition differs, that is why I asked.

Sorry but if you can't or won't look it up, then I can be of no assistance to you.

Let me help you, Is a one year old independent?

In what sense? Let me help you, you are using it as an absolute, and ignoring the context in which I used it.

I'd rather discuss the topic if you don't mind, and not be dragged in curing basic literacy problems.

 

[Kenny]

You could always address the many points I have made that are salient to the topic, if you have any interest (for once) in actual debate?

Points? I thought they were rants, strawmans, ireland side-tracks...

Did you even read the OP and digest it?

 

[Sheldon]

Points? I thought they were rants, strawmans, ireland side-tracks...

Until you share a cogent thought on those points, I can't help you sorry. For example quote a claim of mine you think is a strawman, and explain why you think this. It's pluralised as strawmen by the way, not strawmans (sic). I have no idea what an Ireland side-track is or means sorry. The idea I am the one producing angry or emotive arguments is simply hilarious.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry but if you can't or won't look it up, then I can be of no assistance to you.



In what sense? Let me help you, you are using it as an absolute, and ignoring the context in which I used it.

I'd rather discuss the topic if you don't mind, and not be dragged in curing basic literacy problems.

LOL... yes, you don't want to dig a hole deeper than what you already dug.

THIS says it all... thank you for admitting your error in what constitutes a person.

 

[Kenny]

.

Until you share a cogent thought on those points,

EXACTLY!!!!!!!! Your rants don't qualify.

 

[Sheldon]

LOL... yes, you don't want to dig a hole deeper than what you already dug.

So no then you have no example to support your false claim that I used a straw man, quelle surprise.

THIS says it all... thank you for admitting your error in what constitutes a person.

Ah the hilarity continues unabated, and your ignorance of your error continues unabashed it seems. You used the word independent to imply an absolute, when I clearly did not, but this is lost on you so again I see little point in carrying on.

 

[Sheldon]

.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!! Your rants don't qualify.

Trolltastic....

It seems again debate is wasted on you.

 

[Kenny]

Get ready for a loooooog and boring discussion where you will never get a clear definition of independent

Are you a prophet? You were SOOO right!

 

[Sheldon]

Is a one year old independent?

Biologically of its mother's body, yes. You have seen a baby right? They are not topologically connected, they no longer share an immune system or metabolism, and don't get nutrition and oxygen via the woman's blood, in the way a foetus must. Thus are independent in that context. They can and do survive entirely without the mother, whereas a foetus cannot.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Until it is capable of being a sentient non-obligate parasite, then the embryo is still just a part of the pregnant woman, just like sperm, eggs, and pluripotent cells. Cells which, by their very nature, may be expelled from her body (like skin or GI slough and lost hairs). And yes, she can do with it as she sees fit for any portion of her body. However, if her intent is to carry it across the threshold to real personhood (I.e. it can be removed from her and be reasonably expected to survive), then she should just deliver it and be done with it, without mutilating it (including drinking, smoking, drug abuse, and so much more).

Interesting opinion. A living being becomes a person when it can survive outside of mother's body. Is he/she not the same being/person from the start?

 

[leroy]

Admit that it is a stupid and pointless question on your part and I will answer it.

Ofcourse is a stupid question, nobody has the right to harm innocent people.

 

[Koldo]

Actually the position is not that uncommon one among medical professionals, I even gave 8 biological factors that objectively evidenced this to be the case, but of course they were never addressed honestly, just dismissed with the usual emotive handwaving.

I have honestly never met a doctor that said that the fetus is part of the woman's body.

However it is still a straw man, since that argument supplied with sufficient objective evidence (see above) was offered to contradict the claim that a blastocyst or foetus is an independent human being, but not as a justification in and of itself for an abortion. Since I am pro-choice, and it's none of my business why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, why a woman seeks one is irrelevant. If a woman ever makes the choice to simply mutilate a foetus, and astonishingly a medical professional team agree to do it, with the intent to take the pregnancy to term, then I will address this use of reductio ad absurdum. Until then it is an irrelevant red herring that yet again tries to ignore cogent facts and rational argument with an appeal to emotion.

Women are not prosecuted for smoking or drinking during pregnancies though, so even though this is an obvious reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is not very compelling even without being manifestly irrational. At least this is the case in the UK anyway.

The OP is again simply comparing an insentient foetus or blastocyst with the rights we grant fully sentient humans, in a dishonest and emotive use of reductio ad absurdum. With an example that is manifestly a red herring. Women it seems already have this right, since they are not prosecuted for harming a foetus by things like alcohol and drug abuse, or smoking.

I wonder how the OP thinks about that. I am going to check the other posts later to see if he has commented on this already.

 

[crossfire]

So under your view can a mother

1 kill the embryo/fetus

She can certainly have a non-viable fetus removed from her body.

2 mutilate his leggs


Yes no why?

Knowingly? She would probably need psychological help if she knowingly wanted to do this.

 

[sayak83]

Again you shouldn't build a half unsafe car and sale it as a complete safe car .

But you can build a half car and keep it for yourself if you whant (exhibition cars are usually incomplete cars) and they are not illegal.


But what is your point? Why cant a mother mutilate the fetus?

Can the fetal consciousness choose not to be formed in a mutilated fetus at the time of brain development (> 24 weeks)? If not then for this example the customer has no choice. The customer has preordered the car with the expectation that it will be safe and complete when delivered, but the car maker, instead of recalling a defective and unsafe product (produced deliberately or due to some accident in the manufacturing line) is continuing to deliver this unsafe car to the customer who is forced to use it. That is criminal. Instead the correct thing to do is that if the product is defective (either due to deliberate sabotage or unintentional mishaps), the car maker should cancel the order and abort the car sale.

In case you are not getting the analogy:-
Car maker is the mother who is manufacturing the fetal body (the car) while the customer (the fetal consciousness) gets to drive after it comes out of the production line (from birth).

 

[Alien826]

I have honestly never met a doctor that said that the fetus is part of the woman's body.



I wonder how the OP thinks about that. I am going to check the other posts later to see if he has commented on this already.

I haven't followed all of this, but I'll throw this in for what it's worth.

There is one thing where the fetus is different from every other part of the woman. It has different DNA (yes, yes, half of it). That would seem to suggest a separate organism, not a part, like her liver.

Have I missed the point?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Interesting opinion. A living being becomes a person when it can survive outside of mother's body. Is he/she not the same being/person from the start?

Same chunk of cells perhaps. But not a person.
The real point of discussion all along has been, when exactly does an embryo/fetus gain personhood and with it, rights?

The problem is that so many don’t want to bother thinking about it, so they fall back to some non-sense, faceless ideas that come from others who tell them things like, “at the moment of conception,”. To which I would ask, “Why?”

We must also keep in mind that, at least in the USA, no one (or any) religion’s opinions on the issue matter at all.